It does not bode well for Sergeants Miniatures Game

First, let me start by saying that I did not label this post as a "review". I did not get deep enough into the game to actually review it. But I did get deep enough to get an impression, and you probably have a pretty good hint with the title.

So, Sergeants Miniatures Game (SMG) has been out there for a couple of years. I am not really sure of what the first iteration was but I first became aware of it about a year or so ago when reading about Day of Days, which featured the US Paratroopers in Normandy. Now to be honest, I was sort of tired of this particular theme, having several games and scenario books about this very thing, so I was not immediately sucked in. Secondly, the expansions were expensive, way too expensive for something that was just a set of painted miniatures (20mm, at that!). So I read reviews, downloaded teaser rules, and generally bided my time. I had too many other good WWII games to worry about adding yet another.

Then I heard that a British Paratroopers in Normandy version (Red Devils) was coming out. As I have never collected the British, in any theater of WWII, I thought that this might be justification enough to try it. So I invested in their Kickstarter project and waited.

Having received it a couple of weeks ago, I decided to give it a try and report back on what I thought. The reality is that I have little to report. I started to set the game up and stalled on certain aspects of the game. I went back several times and each time I could not come to grips with starting the game.

The first problem is that the game is tedious to setup. If you have ever complained about setting up a board game like Arkham Horror, which has a lot of different components, all of which need to be separated and shuffled, you probably won't like SMG. What makes SMG unique, and those pre-painted miniatures expensive, is that the soldiers represented by the miniatures and cards are intended to be unique. Your set of miniatures and cards in your boxed set will not match the miniatures and cards in my boxed set. If you buy expansion X, the cards and miniatures you get will not be the same as mine. I am not saying that the game is collectible – if you order another set of something the random element built into the manufacturing process will generate another unique set of stats for the cards and a random miniature will be placed in the box. You can't "collect them all" because there is no finite set; there are literally random elements to the production of the game.

What that means is that you take these cards, presenting the soldiers, scenarios, terrain pieces in place, etc. and build decks in order to play the game. Each player (not side, player) has an action deck and each game has a Story deck. Different factors determine which cards are in play and which are excluded. As there is a point building system for the sides, that means that pre-game play requires you price out your forces, build your decks based on who you selected, the terrain (primarily landmarks) used in the scenario, and so on. So there is really no way to pre-build all of this unless one player simply decides to play what he is given.

Then there is the factor that the cards represents the soldiers at different points (ranks) in their careers, along with rules about how many soldiers you can have of any given rank in your force. So a soldier may have one set of cards when a Lance Corporal, but another set when they are a Sergeant. In addition, so cards are purchased with points, adding further to the variability.

All of which is to say that the game does have a higher replay value, given this variability. But, only if you can muster then wherewithall to play the game in the first place. After having the game sit on my dining room table for two weeks, in various stages of pre-game configuration, I finally tore it down today, much to the rejoicing of my wife who wanted to eat a holiday meal at the formal dinner table again.

If I ever get through this, I will let you know. But I strongly suspect that I will never play this until I get to a convention where the game designer is giving demonstrations of it, everything is preset, and all of the rules questions you have can be instantly ironed out because the game designer is there to help you along. And if it plays well enough, it may motivate me to try it at home. Until then, however, it will sit on the shelf.

Double-Blind Wargaming

Have you ever played a double-blind wargame? That is where each player has his own map, counters (or miniatures), and can only see his own forces and the enemy forces within line of sight (LOS). They are a lot of fun and tend to be much more intense than a standard face-to-face wargame, but because they generally require an umpire (to tell each player what their forces see) and are a lot of work. As noted on BoardGameGeek, double-blind has been used with naval wargames, but for land-based warfare only nine board games are listed in the category. That is because writing rules to replace the need for an umpire is very hard. But computer games do it all of the time as the computer acts as umpire for the two sides.

I have noticed a few computer applications out there that handle the rules of miniature wargames, such as Carnage and Glory. Some people love them and others hate them. Part of the issue (from what I have read; I have never used them) is that the program take a little time and effort to use. But in exchange, you get a set of rules that can easily handle a lot of complications with ease. Remember those rules from the 1980's, like Fire Fight and Challenger II, that had loads of modifiers and special cases? Computer-based rules seem good for that.

But in the end, those rules don't require an umpire (more like a bookkeeper), so they don't really solve the problems that double-blind wargames do, which is limiting the information that a player has about the opposing forces and where they are located. A good computer program for that would be a good idea.

That is what I have been working on all this time (and why I have not been gaming). The idea is for players to order their forces on a computer (I am initially targeting an iPad or Android tablet) and then the application reveals what both player's see. The idea is that the application acts as an aid to miniatures gaming. Only the miniatures that are visible are placed on the tabletop.

From this comes a slew of additional ideas on enhancing the wargaming experience:

• The application "knows" the rules.
• It can hide specific dice results and give general comments on the state of troops or damage (friendly or enemy).
• It can hide the command and control mechanics so that a player does not know their command "limit" for the turn (say if you are using a command point, or PIP, system). When the last point is used the computer tells them "you are done giving orders".
• Line of sight can not only be blocked, but it can be obscured, allowing for units to be seen, but not identified by type or grade. (At a 1000 yards those blue blobs are probably French soldiers, but are they the Old Guard? Or your Prussian allies?)
• Timed moves can be enforced.
• And, of course, you can track a number of additional factors (fatigue, smoke, ammunition, etc.) that would be too tedious to deal with without a computer.

Now I did not think up all of this myself. (I am working with a published game designer, but at this point I haven't asked for or been given permission to use his name.) My original idea was something along the lines of a cross between Vassal and Memoir '44 Online. I wanted a gaming platform that would allow me to play games remotely, but the application would know and enforce the rules. That would have meant an application used by each player, over the internet. The game designer convinced me of his vision, which was to create a pass-and-play application that would enhance the miniatures wargame experience by providing the ever-elusive double-blind wargames umpire.

I think I can morph the code from his vision to my original one, but network programming takes a lot more time so I see the pass-and-play version as a good stepping stone. After all there is a lot of coding just to deal with the interface, rules, line of sight calculations (you would not believe the math I put myself through), etc.

So, when will I be done? Who the hell knows. But the good thing is that I am plugging away at it.

Not that I will be discouraged if the feedback is less than positive, but I would like to hear your comments about computer-assisted miniatures gaming, pros and cons. Do you think that they (would) get in the way? Would you ever allow the computer to roll the dice for you? Is losing control – a lot of control – something that you think would add to the experience? Have you ever played a double-blind wargame with an umpire?

Sound off!

My Success Rate with Kickstarter

I decided to get into a few Kickstarter projects, as reported previously, and so I thought I would give an update on my success with it so far.

Up Front – Funded on January 13, 2013. Estimated delivery was for June 2013. As of December 2013 it has not been delivered and no delivery date is set. Yes, this is the one that so many people said "you'll be sorry!" because the project was headed up by someone who had lawsuits in his rear-view mirror. Because of an error on my part, I got way too much of it. Lots of excuses and lots of time in which no updates were forthcoming. Looks bad. Oh, this is supposed to be a re-print and update to the classic Avalon Hill game Up Front.

Rivet Wars – Funded February 4, 2013. Estimated delivery was for September 2013. As of December 2013 it has not been delivered and delivery is slated for "ample time before Christmas". Hopefully that means 2013... I have a fair amount spent on this too, but not as much as Up Front. If I get it, I think the money will be well worth it.

Sergeants Miniatures Game: Red Devils – Funded February 24, 2013. Estimated delivery was for May 2013. It was delivered November 27, 2013. I bought the minimum on this one as I was still skeptical about the game, having read a fair amount about the previous version, Sergeants Miniatures Games: Day of Days. My skepticism mostly arose from the cost of the painted miniatures, and that you really could not play without buying the those miniatures (because they came with unique cards you need). So if you wanted to play a game with 15 miniatures on a side it was going to set you back. And did I really want to invest in another WW II skirmish game, only this time with 20mm miniatures? (Obviously the answer was "yes"...) I am hoping to provide a review of these rules soon.

Small World 2 (Take 1) – Cancelled by project managers as they felt that it was confusing as to what the project was really about.

Small World 2 (Take 2) – Funded on April 10, 2013. Estimated delivery was for October 2013. Delivered September 12, 2013. Game is much better than before, so was definitely worth the $8.

By Fire and Sword – Funded on May 20, 2013. Estimated delivery was for June 2013. Honestly, I cannot remember when this arrived, but as I only ordered the rulebook I was not held up by waiting for the sculptors to finish their task. This company was really good about providing updates and has sent a stream of PDFs, army list additions, etc. about that product and others they offer. Unfortunately, Eastern Renaissance went to the back burner sometime ago, despite having Polish and Cossack armies painted (but requiring rebasing). Someday... There have been some funny errors though, like the "Regimental Rooster Sheet".

So, all in all my big, high expectation purchases were utter flops, with regards to delivery times (or even if they will deliver). By the time I got up to June 2013 three projects were supposed to have delivered and none did. At the time I could see that  three of them were in trouble with their schedules. I decided that I had enough, at least until something delivered.

There has been some interesting conversations about how Kickstarter (and P500 projects) are "killing" retail hobby stores. That may be – although I think it is just one more nail in the coffin rather than the single most important reason – but I honestly cannot see any of the hobby shops in my area, and probably any that I have frequented in the past (that still remain), speculating on buying into Kickstarter or P500 for me. They all want to: a) wait until it goes retail and actually ships; and b) wait to see if it will sell. They have enough SKUs on the shelf as it is.

Added to that they want to sell it for full retail, when the companies are essentially offering a discount to invest in their project early. So who do you support, the manufacturers of the content, or the ones that sell it locally? So many gaming companies are using Kickstarter or P500 to gauge interest. If you wait and play it safe, like the retailers, the game may never come. Tough decision, especially as another local hobby store has just failed.

Ah well, we can't save them all.

I hope to get a review of Sergeants Miniatures Game: Red Devils out soon, along with some news regarding what I have been doing with my time. It is not really gaming, but it is gaming related.

Sorry for Going Dark

I know I have not posted anything in quite a while. I have been gaming, but as I am helping play test a new set of rules I have been reluctant to post pictures as I do not have permission from the author. (Although I have noticed that other play testers have been posting pictures of their games.) The rules are tentatively called 100 Dice and is from Sergio Laslicia (and presumably, will be published by Ganesha Games).

I am also working on code at night, working on an idea for a gaming server. I cannot go into it much, but the basic idea is to create something along the lines of Days of Wonder's Memoir 44 Online. That has been taking up a lot of time.

Finally, I accidentally got sucked into Minecraft, which I find relaxing in many ways ... well until the Zombies, Skeletons, Creepers, and Spiders start swarming you, that is.

Hopefully I will get some games of Saga in soon, or at the very least something reportable.

Mounting up the Torakk Riders

Staying off of the forums has helped me get some more painting done. Part of the purchase from Microworld Games were the Torakk Riders from Dark Realm Miniatures. To me, these 6mm science fiction miniatures are very reminiscent of the rider in Ralph Bashki's movie Wizards. (Here is a link to the movie poster. I am not going to link in the image itself.) Of course the riding beast is different and the rider has Kraytonian armor, so I guess it is just the pose.

I started off by priming these figures white. I then used various browns, yellows, and reds in washes, inks, and glazes to get my beast tones. I then painted a darker flesh color for the 'horn' and the 'beak', then washed it in brown to blend it in.

For the rider I first coated him in gloss, then washed him in Citadel Nuln Oil (a black wash). That got the black mostly into the depressions and only lightly colored the white primer. I then washed the armor with Citadel Camoshade and that colored the figure the green that you see. I then picked out the equipment in various colors and washed over them in browns or greens in order to blend in the colors.

Yes, I did actually paint the eyes white on these guys. They were pretty well defined in the sculpt.

These guys had a bit larger base, ½" circle punched from magnetic business cards, which I covered with sand, painted my standard Cocoa color (which is colored more like light caramel), washed in dark brown to give some depth, and then added static grass.

All in all it took about two evenings, as this style requires a lot of time drying (due to all the washes and glazes).

The figures were fun to paint, but … they are not 6mm, in my opinion. Never mind that the total figure height is so tall, but the rider itself is much larger than the GW Epic Space Marines and larger than even the Kraytonian infantry, which they are supposed to duplicate. Torakk Riders must be the 'cuirassiers' of their day!

The Abominations Arrive!

Onslaught Miniatures announced that the next wave of their 6mm science fiction line is out, and I had to buy some. This time it is the Abomination, reminiscent of Genestealer Hybrids. As I loved the game Space Hulk (First Edition, along with all of the expansions, and the articles from White Dwarf magazine), I still have a collection of 28mm Genestealer Hybrids from Citadel Miniatures. These are not reduced sized copies of those original miniatures, but they definitely give you that feel, just as their Legion figures give you the feel for the Tyranid species without actually copying them.

First up are the three variants of the close combat Abominations. As you can see, two are four-armed and one is two-armed.

The body armor is well formed. I painted the armor a dark gray, then picked out the high spots with blue paint. For the flesh I primed the figures white, washed them in GW purple wash (the one no longer available; I have not tried the new ones), then picked out the high spots in sunburned flesh. If you click on the pictures, you will see a greatly magnified image.

Next are the Abominations with squad automatic support weapons.

As you can see, two are held slung low – the left hand actually holding a handle on top of the weapon – while the third uses a more traditional grip. The first figure is three-armed – he looks like a leader signaling with upraised claw – and the additional of a "bionic eye" lends to that aura. I like him; I need to add some markings to his armor indicating that he is a leader.

As with the previous figures the armor is well defined, making it easy to pick out the detail with a paint brush. I started getting a little better with the faces on these guys.

Finally, we have the Abominations with the heavy weapons. Two weapons look like the weapons on the GW Epic Orks with heavy weapons; they look like missile launchers to me, which is great, because it gives the unit some anti-armor capability. The last looks like a shoulder-mounted laser weapon.

It almost looks like I painted the teeth white on some of these guys, but that is just the purple wash not getting into the crevice of the mouth and leaving it white. I cannot see it with the naked eye, but I had to laugh when I saw the pictures.

The openings on the front and back of this weapon are well defined, so it warranted a wash in order to highlight it. I was worried that the wash would overpower the light gray color, so I used Army Painter's Soft Tone Ink. I probably could have gone darker, using something like an armor wash.

The 'sun glasses' worn by this figure is purely an accident of painting. But he does look cool!

All in all, these figures were very fun to paint. In all of the GW Epic figures that I have, I was never able to get any Tyranid forces on eBay, largely because others outbid me; they were very popular (and expensive). From a skirmish viewpoint, using something like In the Emperor's Name (ITEN), FUBAR, or Angel Barracks' KR16, the Abominations are probably a better force to collect. When gaming at a larger scale – where units are squads or platoons – the Legion are an excellent choice to represent mass attacks by the 'Bugs'.

New Science Fiction Rules

Speaking of which … Ganesha Games has come out with a new set of science fiction rules called SWATTERS! It has some interesting concepts for representing multi-unit combat (think Sixty-One Sixty-Five for science fiction) that I think can be applied across many genres. I hope to do a review and battle report soon.

Well, I need to keep off of the forums for awhile, so I hope to get back to the painting table and finish some sample figures of the rest of the Legion line (I bought the Gashers, Stalkers, and Winged Stalkers when I bought the Abominations). I have also painted up some Dark Realms figures, but I am a little unsure I like the results. The figures are great to paint, don't get me wrong, but I think I chose a bad color scheme.

Angel Barracks has come out with a new draft of his KR16 rules. They are free, so other than your time, there really is no cost to downloading them and trying them out. As far as I know, they are only available on the Angel Barracks forum on Yahoo. (If I am wrong, don't worry, Michael will probably correct me in the comments section.)

iPad Gaming

I got into the game Frontline Tactics on the Mac. It is a pretty repetitive game and you will probably find it additive for about 20 hours, but as part of an experiment with the online account, I downloaded the game it to my iPad. I had a point where I had to wait someone for awhile, so I started playing the game on my iPad to while away the time.

There is a new mobile gaming technology that I heard a podcast about that allows the developer to pop up an ad, at appropriate breaks in the action, while gives the gamer in-game rewards for play. It is not too annoying (it pops up at the end of each mission) and I have tapped on a few to see what they were offering.

I surprised the wife with an early delivery of flowers for Mother's Day. My wife used to not like to receive flowers, but now that she has a lot of land, she likes trying to see if she can take the cutting and get them to grow. I have not given her flowers in awhile so she was surprised by the gift. "Why did you decide to give them too me this year?" she asked. "Oh, just because …"

… just because it earned me 250,000 credits in the game Frontline Tactics, that is!

There is a board game called Eclipse that has been converted to the iPad. It has been a long time coming and greatly anticipated. As it was less than $10 ($6.99, I think?) I decided to pick it up, because of all the buzz.

Stay away! It is a huge time drain!

Seriously, the game is very fun and has gotten me interested in the board game itself. People that play the board games say that the iPad version has a few implementation issues (i.e. the rules are different from the board game), but only one crashing bug has been reported (that I have heard of) and it is apparently not likely to be triggered.

Money well spent (even if the time is not).

BattleLore

And finally … the BattleLore over Vassal tournament is finally over. (I love the gaming, but scheduling within a time limit creates pressure I really did not like. In the end I was starting to get irritated over the scheduling issues.)

I won both rounds, scoring 8-2 and 8-7. Yes, I won the tournament! As strange as it sounds, this was the first BattleLore over Vassal tournament that has ever completed, so that makes me the first champion. This for a game no longer printed and poorly supported by the license holder.

One of the things that came out of it, however, is how much Chris and I prefer the Epic version of BattleLore. It actually lowers the luck factor of the card draw, plus uses larger maps and more units. It seems like we will be using this format more often in the future.

New Readers

Welcome to new readers Les and Dehewes. Dehewes' profile pointed me a nice Kindle blog that shows new Kindle eBooks that come out and go on sale. Les has an interesting blog, Wargaming France 1940, where he games that subject in 6mm. He is also a solo gamer, so it will probably be a source for ideas for me for my Solo Battles blog.

I hope you guys enjoy the blog content. Feel free to leave a comment when something strikes you.

Updated Tlaxcaltec Battleboard for Saga

Tlaxcaltec Battleboard

I have updated the Tlaxcaltec battleboard and created a faction rule page for Saga. I dropped the concept of modeling the warrior units as two separate units, one melee and one bow-armed. Now they are a sort of "super Warrior" unit that fights as well as any Warrior unit in melee, but can also fire bows. In order to keep in line with the Saga design philosophy – where each advantage has to be countered by an equal disadvantage – the bows cannot be fired on the move. (I admit that it is not much of a disadvantage, as no moving fire is still better than no fire, but this is a draft.)

To replace the Saga ability that supported the old warrior model, the Welsh Taunting ability was added. Seems like a dangerous sort of ability for the Tlaxcaltecs, but Ralph suggested that they use it to draw units into bow range, rather than onto Uneven Ground, which is the Welsh tactic.

The Tlaxcaltecs now have their version of the Cuachiqueh, so Berserkers for everyone!

The other difference from the Aztecs is the lack of atlatl. As that weapon is tied to a Saga ability, giving them the weapon meant giving up an ability. Overall, I think it is easier just to forego the atlatl for the Tlaxcaltecs as the Warriors and Levy are all missile-armed.

I think the Tlaxcaltecs will do pretty well. Although the Aztec battleboard is pretty focused (its theme is that it inflicts FATIGUE), the Tlaxcaltec board is designed to inflict casualties at range. So like the classic battles Don and I used to play with Welsh versus Anglo-Danes, one side strives to stay at range while the other side strives to get stuck in. If the former can inflict enough damage before the latter inevitably close the gap, they will probably win.

I am looking forward to trying out these new boards. First, however, I have a "normal" Dark Ages Norman versus Vikings game to umpire first.

Tlaxcaltec Faction Rules

If you have any questions regarding the battleboards or faction rules, feel free to comment or join the Mesoamerican Saga forum and post.

Updated Aztec Battleboard for Saga

Aztec Battleboard

 I have updated the battleboard for the Aztec faction, including a separate rules page, so you can print it double-sided. I decided to remove the Tomahawk Studios background, as someone suggested that people might find it confusing when this is an unofficial, fan-made variant, but also because this is less ink intensive for printing out. I may come up with a true ink-saving version once everything has been shaken out.

There are no changes to the Saga abilities; I think they worked out well in my test games, although they can always use more testing. The real addition to this version are the Cuachiqueh rules. These are a new unit type, basically an upgraded version of the Hearthguard. like the Irish Curaidh. The difference is that I made the Cuachiqueh two figures for 1 point, rather than buying 4 Hearthguard, designating two as this special unit type, then trying to balance advantages and disadvantages to justify the point cost. Personally, I think they did it wrong for the Irish, and if I were playing them, I would definitely buy the Curaidh as I believe they are under-costed.

After long discussions on the Mesoamerican Saga forum, I decided to keep the atlatl weapon as a "super javelin" rather than try to model it as a pilum (a pre-melee weapon), or as both. I have been reading more about the period, including Hassig's Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control and Castillo's The Memoirs of the Conquistador Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Vol 1 (of 2) Written by Himself Containing a True and Full Account of the Discovery and Conquest of Mexico and New Spain. (The latter book is free on Kindle. There are free Kindle readers for the Mac, PC, iOS, and Android.) So far neither has given a really good impression about how the weapon was used, just that it had good penetrative powers. So "super javelin" it is, despite this You Tube video on atlatl versus steel armor.

My biggest problem, at the moment, is coming up with a new Saga ability for the Tlaxcaltec faction. I took out the Shielded Volley ability, which emulated the way Tomahawk Studios modeled shielded archer units for the Byzantines. Personally, I don't think that the model works, at least not for the combination of abilities I gave the Tlaxcaltec. So I scrapped that ability and am in search for a new replacement. Unfortunately, I have not really hit upon anything in Hassig's book about them, so it looks like it will just be something from the pool of abilities already out there that "fits". If you have any ideas, let me know.

Aztec Faction Rules

So that battleboard is already changed to the new style, including a rules page, but I am not going to publish it until I figure out what the new ability will be.

Ralph sent me some clarifications on his Bolas ability for the Inca faction, so I will update that and may re-publish soon, assuming all of the kinks are ironed out. I think there are more.

It turns out that there are some players in Mexico that are trying out these battleboards, or some variation of them. The more feedback, the better. Unfortunately no pictures or battle report, but it sounded like it was a game between the Aztecs and the Anglo-Saxons. (Who knew?) The good thing it that it did not seem that the Aztecs were over-powered compared to the Old World factions. Although I never expect these factions will be allowed in a tournament – they are starting to ban the use of banners, and those are official rules from an expansion – it is still good to hear that they play well with others.

Historical Gaming Night

The local gaming club wants to get something going for historical gaming – the idea is for one person to host a game, providing (or arranging for) the figures, terrain, etc. and doing the setup so that the other players can just roll in and start rolling dice – so we are going to give Saga a whirl as the first hosted game. I just bought a painted collection of "Vikings" (120 foot and 10 mounted) and started re-basing them on Saturday. I intend to take before and after pictures as I touch up the figures. (They are what you would call "wargaming standard" paint jobs for most of the figures, although some are pretty nice, especially the mounted.) Don has been collecting Normans, so the game will probably be those against a band of Vikings. As this is the first game for another local player (I will be refereeing, looking up rules, and generally keeping things moving) we will be keeping the forces to four points and I figured the Vikings are pretty straight forward to play.

As Don has never played the Normans, I think it will be an interesting challenge for him, despite the fact that he has more Saga games under his belt than his opponent. Normans have the inherent conflict of being half shooting army, half mounted melee. The goal will be to commit the mounted troops early enough to make an impact, but not so early that the missile troops have not softened up the enemy sufficiently. I cannot think of any worse result than throwing in the Knights and getting beaten up so badly that you feel compelled to retreat the unit for fear of losing a Saga die. Although the Knights may utterly crush their opponents, if the result is an exchange of your unit versus his, you have probably gotten the worst of the exchange.

I'll have to read the Norman battleboard, but I think it is as "conflicted" as the army composition is. If I recall correctly, it has both shooting abilities and mounted charging abilities. Personally I prefer abilities that can be applied to as many units as possible. So a board full of abilities that apply only to specific units is, in my mind, hard to play. The Vikings are relatively straight-forward. Their theme is to shed fatigue, so that is useful for most any unit they would have.

New 6mm Science Fiction Miniatures

Unfortunately, I was scheduled to paint the new Abominations from Onslaught Miniatures this weekend, but the preparation for the Saga game (which was originally scheduled for tonight) and Round 1 of the BattleLore tournament Finals took up all my time. I did get one figure completely painted (waiting for basing), and one of each of the others started. (I usually paint one figure completely in order to get an idea of what something will look like, and to help me decide what order to lay the colors down onto a figure.) The figures are very easy to paint, as the details are sufficiently raised or etched, and clearly visible once primed. Running a brush along a detail is usually sufficient to pick it out neatly.

Basically the Abominations are similar to the old Genestealer Cult Hybrids. Some figures have two arms, some three, and some four. Some of the arms have fingers on the hands while others have claws similar to their Prowler figures. I hope to get pictures up later this week, along with size comparisons.

In the meantime I "discovered" another line of 6mm science fiction figures: PFC/CinC. Their Solar Empire Marines line looks pretty good. In the past I have found CinC miniatures to be softer metal, and less well defined than GHQ. This line looks about the same, in that the figure looks more rounded or "softer" than Onslaught Miniatures or Microworld. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, just different. Despite the name, it is not just Space Marines, however. They have a Felid race, intelligent, weapon-using Raptors, and another humanoid race. CinC also has a second line of 6mm science fiction vehicles. Most are of the GEV design, but the tracked tank hunter is a particularly interesting design, sort of like a shorter Merkava.

BattleLore Tournament

Round 1 (or two) of the Finals in the BattleLore tournament has been completed, and I won 8-2. Chris wanted to play the side with the Goblins first – as he sees it as the weaker side he wanted to get them out of the way – but our random draw of forces made for a pretty even affair with mostly human forces on both sides.

Chris came out of the gate swinging and drew first blood, taking out a critical unit of mine (the Dwarf Heavy Swords), on the flank I had planned to win on. We exchanged losses and were at 2-2 when "The Event" occurred: Chris drew, as a replacement to the card hand we both shared, the BattleLore card. Now the ironic part of all this is that Chris dreaded the event, figuring I would hose him with the card. I, on the other hand, did not want to play it, as you can only move three units on average (albeit, with large combat bonuses) and I had cards that would allow me to move more units. But by the time The Event occurred, Chris was pressing very hard on the flank I was trying to withdraw, so I played the card not because it was a good play for me, but because I could not risk him rolling a lot of Blue banners or Lore and completely crushing that flank. So I played it in order to deny him the card.

Well, that play was The Event because I used two units to attack and was lucky enough to break his attacking formation. I ended up reversing the situation on that flank, using my cavalry to chase down his fleeing troops who were desperately trying to reform. I intentionally pushed my one heavy cavalry unit in order to chase down a unit, knowing that it would be vulnerable to a counterattack. When the counterattack came, I had a First Strike card that allowed me to ambush the attacking unit and I rolled so well I destroyed the unit outright. (That was "The Second Event".) That put me at 5-2 and had resulted in the last formed resistance on that flank broken. With three units scattered on the flank and only three victory banners to go, I had my plan. Further, the cards had been cooperating and giving me access to card after card on that flank. Chris was well and thoroughly demoralized.

It took quite some time for me to whittle down the enemy units to a point that the time was ripe for "The Final Event". It came in the form of a Mounted Charge card, allowing me to pick off two strength 1 Goblin units hiding in the rear, and a strength 3 Sword unit. Chris had been prepared for this, and attempted to stave off the killing blow by holding onto an Evade card (allowing a unit to escape from combat), but I attacked all of the units in such a way that there was no retreat.

It was an exciting game (for me) and Chris is swearing vengeance, but honestly I think the forces were more evenly balanced than the games he and I both played in the Semi-Finals, which were heavily stilted against the Goblins. I have prepared the game and tonight Chris and I will do our deployment (and maybe a few turns), probably finishing the game either over the course of several week nights or next weekend.

Although I have had great fun in this tournament, and proud to have made it to the Finals, I am getting weary of the "pressure" of scheduling games and trying to notify people so they can watch (and then seeing almost no one show up). Now I have a few more email addresses, and a sense of how fun some of the guys might be to play, so I can probably get a few more games in the future. Not that playing Chris is a problem! He has obviously gotten better, and like me, likes to analyze the games afterwards; what worked and what did not.

C4ISR – Test Game 2

Another C4ISR Test Game

Today, gaming buddy Don agreed to test C4ISR (my science fiction version of Command and Colors rules). I really liked the game, but more importantly, I think we both came up with what we did and did not like.

What we tried:

• Battle dice were 10-sided, with the faces: Infantry-Infantry-Armor-Artillery-Air-Grenade-Medic-Flag-Miss-Miss. Note that the odds are reduced compared to the Memoir '44 six-sided battle dice. Also note that artillery is hit on its own symbol now.
• Grenades only hit in close combat.

• Infantry attacking Anti-Personnel (AP) Targets: dice rolled are 3-3-2-2-1-1. (That is the number of dice at each hex range, so 3 dice at 1 and 2 hexes, 2 dice at 3 and 4 hexes, etc.)
• Infantry attacking Anti-Armor (AT) Targets: 4-2-2-1.
• Mech Infantry attacking AP Targets: 3-3-2-2-1-1.
• Mech Infantry attacking AT Targets: 4-2-2-1.
• Armor attacking AP Targets: 2-3-3-2-1-1.
• Armor attacking AT Targets: 4-4-3-3-2-2-1-1
• Artillery attack AP or AT Targets: 3-2-1. Note that for artillery this is not hex count, but board section count. In other words, 3 dice for the same board section, 2 dice for an adjacent board section, and 1 die for a board section two away. (On a normal gameboard there are six board sections: Left, Center, and Right for each half of the battlefield. For a Breakthrough-sized board there are nine board sections. For Overlord-sized boards it is 12 board sections and Overlord-Breakthrough-sized it is a whopping 18 board sections!)
• All units use 1 less die if the unit has taken any number of casualties.
• Terrain was more like BattleLore than Memoir '44. Rather than subtracting dice to attack in or out, the maximum number of dice were indicated instead. Buildings were 1 die shooting in and 2 dice shooting out (1 die for Armor shooting out). Woods were 2 dice in and no restrictions out. Hills were 2 dice up, 3 dice across (hill-to-hill) or down. We did not use any other terrain types. Artillery was unaffected by the battle dice restrictions of terrain, either in or out.

• Artillery count as AP targets.
• Mech Infantry and Self-Propelled Artillery count as AT targets.

• Light Infantry move 2 hexes and Battle or 3 hexes.
• Elite Light Infantry move 3 hexes and Battle.
• Mech Infantry move 4 hexes and Battle or 6 hexes.
• Armor move 6 hexes and Battle.
• Artillery move 1 hex or Battle.
• Self-Propelled Artillery move 2 hexes and Battle or 4 hexes.
• Units must stop when they enter the first hex adjacent to an enemy unit; they cannot move through.

• Units with support ignore 1 Flag.
• Units with support can Battle Back in close assault.
• Units are supported if two friendly units can provide them support.
• A unit can provide support to a unit it is adjacent to.
• An artillery unit can provide support to a unit within two hexes of it.
• A command unit can provide support to a unit within two hexes of it.

So, although the game is based heavily on Memoir '44, it really takes elements from all of the Richard Borg games. The idea is that C4ISR is at a much lower scale; each unit is a squad or platoon, at most. Each Town hex is more like a Building hex. Using boards from Squad Leader would be more appropriate, in terms of scale.

Units move and fire much farther. The Armor units being able to move 6 and fire 8 hexes means it has a large threat zone. Of course, at this scale, sufficient cover and line-of-sight-blocking terrain is a must.

There were a few other rules that we added, but they did not come into play. For example, the ability of a unit to move through a friendly unit. I also had a few ideas, but Don was not keen on them, so we set them aside.

So, how did it play? Very interesting, I think. The ability to ignore Flags due to support meant that units often stayed in formation. This in turn meant they could battle back in close assault, making them more likely to keep their positions without burning cards.

The long ranges often came into play, then we switched to everything being close assaults, and finally we went back to firing at 2-3 hex range, in order to avoid the battle backs.

The terrain had a great impact on the game. As most infantry was holed up in buildings, most battles were with 1 die, unless it was artillery. In fact, artillery is how we dug infantry out of buildings. We may have to change Armor to getting 2 dice in close assault against buildings to represent the effect of HE in enclosed spaces, but we will see. Using 1 die for infantry fighting house-to-house was a slow, slogging process, and I was fine with it.

Another interesting effect was the penalty of a die to a unit that lost one or more figures. This has a contrary effect to how you play Command and Colors normally, which is to focus fire on a unit until it is dead, and producing a victory point. This gives you an incentive to spread the fire around, pinning units here and there (my explanation of what the -1 die represented). Don focused on that tactic, and as a result a lot of my fire was reduced (but not all – firing into a building with a full unit or reduced still only gives you 1 die). I, on the other hand, kept trying to eliminate units and get to victory.

So, what did we want to change? Most things, actually. Although the game was fun, I could see the complexity in remembering how many dice to roll based on the range was going to be a problem. I mean, in Memoir '44 it is 3-2-1 for infantry, 3-3-3 for armor, and 3-3-2-2-1-1 for artillery. Pretty easy to remember. Infantry in Battle Cry is 4-3-2-1, artillery is 5-4-3-2-1, and cavalry 3, so it is also easy to remember. This model is not (although I did get the hang of it about 75% of the time, by the end of the game). Next experiment will be with a fixed number of dice, like BattleLore, with the same terrain effects (restricting the maximum number of dice, rather than subtracting dice). Also, we will probably extend the range of weapons even farther.

I think support should be a unit within two hexes. Aesthetically it looks much better. Units are not in solid phalanxes and supporting units can be in buildings across the road (i.e. one hex between). Artillery should provide support to any unit in its board section.

Our scenario was not really representative. I am not sure which scenario we played, but it was a Memoir '44 Breakthrough board scenario. The Allies were spread out and the Axis were concentrated, so the latter just started rolling over units eventually. But the low number of dice rolled, along with changing the probabilities of getting hits, meant that it took a long time. Our game last much longer than the normal Memoir game, about twice as long, and about 50% longer than a Breakthrough-board Memoir game.

Sorry no pictures, but it would have just looked like a Memoir game as I was using those figues as proxies. Not enough 6mm science fiction troops painted up yet.

New Figures from Onslaught Miniatures

Speaking of 6mm science fiction miniatures, expect some more comparison photos of the new figures from Onslaught Miniatures. When I made my purchase, Don (of Onslaught Miniatures) only had the Prowlers, Mantis Beasts, and Overseers at the time. I knew I wanted to get the Gashers, Stalkers, and Winged Stalkers, but when the newsletter came out saying that the Abominations were now out, I knew it was time to order.

Perfect for a Genestealer Cult army in 6mm.

Although I like these, and think they will be a blast to paint, I have to be honest and say I was looking forward more to his OTC (not-Tau). But I understand his position. If you start a miniatures line you need to finish it, otherwise people will complain about starting too many lines and finishing none. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. So I will have to wait patiently for the OTC and buy and paint the Abominations in the meantime. I am sure Don won't mind. At this price, neither will my wallet.

BattleLore over Vassal Tournament Update

Well, I am proud to say that I made it by the hairs of my chinny-chin-chin into the Semi-Finals for the BattleLore over Vassal tournament. I only had one bad loss (but it was bad) in the main rounds and I thought it had knocked me out as a contender, but it turns out only one player did not have at least one bad game. Of course, that one player was the guy I had to play in the Semi-Finals!

But, we played our match on Saturday and I lost 5-6 in the first game but won 6-2 in the second, for an 11-8 win in the match, moving me to the Finals.

Today, I watched the other two semi-finalists play and the winner of the match also lost 5-6 on the first game and won the second 6-2. (Weird. Not only that, but we both lost as the Goblin player and won as the Dwarf player.) Ironically, the winner was Chris, the guy I play BattleLore all the time over Vassal. I think I taught him too well! Worse still, he knows all my tricks!

So we will start the Finals this week. Wish me luck!

As for the Samurai Battles over Vassal tournament, I think that is dying a slow death. I did complete another round (there are six, plus semi-finals and finals), but have not gotten any response from the other players. As it turns out, Samurai Battles looked much better on rice paper than it plays. Very disappointing.

The Impact of the Turn Sequence on the Solo Gamer

Over on my Solo Battles blog I wrote an article about the impact that the turn sequence of a game's rules has on the solo gamer. I only mention it because it has gotten a number of very interesting and thought-provoking comments. If you are into game design, you might want to check it out.

Other Gaming News

I finally finished making a simple gameboard with a 2" square grid so I can start playing a gridded version of De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) 3.0. I have given up that the author is going to refine the rules enough to get out the geometric tricks, so as John Acar suggested on a thread on TMP, simply go to the grid; that always gets out tricks like kinked lines and such. I know I won't be able to play in tournaments using these rules, but I think I can get the guys locally to play it. Expect to start seeing some write-ups on my Dale's DBA blog.

Taking Better Pictures with the iPhone

To be honest, many times the pictures in my blog are with my iPhone. Not only does my iPhone have a better camera than my (admittedly) 10 year-old digital camera, but it has a better camera than my iPad. Also, the iPhone is easier to handle and maneuver than either my digital camera or my iPad. What is does not have is a good interface for editing photos and then posting them to a blog; the screen is simply too small.

When I got my iPad I paid for some photo-editing and blog posting software for the iOS so do it all on one platform. If all I needed to do was crop a photo, especially where high detail was not necessary, the iPad was fine. The problem was that I usually did do more to the photos than crop them. I would edit out the backgrounds, add text or arrows, and change brightness and contrast. So in the end, despite the dream of doing it all on the iPad, I abandoned the software packages I bought and did all of the photo editing and blogging on the Mac.

This left me back at square one, which was which device to use for my photos. As I said, I phone has better quality, but the two areas where my digital camera beat it were: wide angle shots (say, a 8' wide table); and very close-up photos (a macro feature). So, whenever I wanted to do shots of painted figures, especially 6mm ones, I tended to pull out the digital camera. Now, I will probably pull out my iPhone.

One of the things I do with my iPhone camera is take pictures of drawings on white boards, and snaps of pages of documents. The problem with the latter has usually been that I am not perfectly parallel with the document and I wobble a little while trying to take the picture, so the writing is skewed or slightly out of focus, making it hard to read and harder to successfully use optical character recognition (OCR) software with. One day I ran across an ad for the StandScan, a stand that allows you to use your iPhone to scan documents. The stand is designed to keep the iPhone parallel and at the right distance for pictures of document pages. I decided to buy it and give it a try.

The StandScan comes in a small package. As you can see by the graphic in the photo, the document goes in a tray at the bottom and the iPhone is place on top, lining up the lens with a hole in the top of the box. The box is made of plastic-coated cardboard, and thus has some "give", meaning the top will not be perfectly parallel to the bottom. I was thinking about stiffening the stand with wires so that it would be, but that is for later.

Through a slick method of folding the product, it forms a box. It stays together because their are about a dozen rare earth magnets embedded into the cardboard at key points so it 'snaps' together.

This shows the hole in the top where you place your iPhone's lens.

I bought the 'Pro' model, which has LED lights on the inside, allowing the document strong lighting for a clear picture. You can see how bright the LEDs are by comparing the darkness on top of the box to the inside.

The picture below shows the LED lights on the inside. The StandScan comes with a battery pack, but you can buy an AC adapter for $4.45.

The StandScan Pro is $29.95, so it is not too expensive, although you might think so as it is basically a cardboard box! (The version without the LED lights is $19.95.)

In another post I will report on how well it does. I can already see some gaming uses. I once wanted to use photos of my miniatures for a digital game, but as it was necessary to take perfect top-down shot of the miniatures, I needed something like this to make all of the angles consistent.

While I was trolling around the StandScan web site, however, I noticed that they had a 3-in-1 lens for the iPhone that provided a wide-angle, macro, and fisheye capability for $24.95. (I have no use for fisheye shots, but they had no cheaper lens that was only 2-in-1.) Here is the package.

Basically the lens clips onto the corner of the iPhone over the camera lens. I was mostly interested in the macro lens. Below is a shot of a 15mm elephant painted by DJD Miniatures in Thailand. That mythical beast on the side of the apron is hand-painted. (I have two such elephants from them, all with the same design, one on each side, and due to the variations in size and strokes you can tell they are hand-painted and not transfers.) This photo is the best the iPhone could do, which is pretty good if you ask me. But I could not move the camera closer without losing focus. And because the camera was far enough away, the iPhone 'flash' did not provide a lot of lighting. (In fact, I had to tweak the brightness and contrast of that photo to get it brighter.)

Putting on the lens at first I thought it was broken or dirty. Nothing would come into focus. Finally I put the camera about 1" away from the elephant and it all came into focus. Because the iPhone is so close its flash is much brighter. This photo has not been manipulated at all, save for cropping it to a smaller size.

Not only is the painting pretty darn impressive, but so is the photo. I will definitely be using these lenses in the future.

Special Abilities (Part 2)

The original post on Special Abilities versus Standard Rules got some good responses, and I thank everyone for that. The sad part is that I clicked the Publish button before I was done with my rant. The wife called me away for a "Honey-Do", which was quickly followed by a scheduled online game, so I forgot to go back and add more. But here it is.

Rules that use special abilities are not in and of itself bad, I think, it is how some approach it that seems to rub me the wrong way. Take four examples of rules that use special abilities: Warhammer 40,000, Flames of War, Saga, and Munchkin. (I know, you are probably getting tired of me mentioning the last two.)

Warhammer 40,000 (WH40K) is the epitome of what some have termed "The Codex Creep". Essentially, in order to play any force you are required to buy at least one "codex", or a book of units stats, force composition rules, special abilities, and special items that can be purchased. Some "factions" get codices more frequently than others, leading to more options and special abilities, all more finely tuned for competition, and thus desired by gamers wanting that "tactical edge". In Episode 23 of The Second Founding podcast the guys talk about GW's "creeping imbalance" and intentionally maintaining a "perfect imbalance". Now some may call these guys cynics, but their theory is that GW's figure and codex designers are beholden to their Corporate Lords and thus they generate new, cool figures that people will want to buy while the codex designers make them the Next Big Thing so that they have to buy them (and not just one) in order to remain competitive.

The "creeping" part of the imbalance is that the latest codex produced tends to be the strongest. This generally pushes people to at least purchase the codex, to see what they are going to face in games. I remember the second time I got back into WH40K I bought the Tau codex, a battle box, and a couple of extra blisters to flesh out the forces. It was an escalation league, so forces were small. But it quickly became obvious that I needed to buy more stuff if I wanted to be competitive. The Chaos Space Marines pulled out some gizmo with a special rule and caught me unawares. The Space Wolf Space Marines attacked with surprise from the rear because they had a special rule I was not aware of. The Orks … well let's just say this sort of thing went on and on we every opponent; they each had their tricks and special rules, and the only way to really be aware of what they were capable of was to buy and study their codex. So, as I said, even if you did not buy an army for whatever new codex came out, you really needed to buy the codex itself, at the very least, so you would know how to fight it.

So as time wore on, and people came to realize that The New Badness could not be countered by your army with its five year old codex, they started collecting new armies. However, this is where the "perfect" part of the imbalance starts to come in. The example the podcast gives is that once upon a time Chaos Space Marines were the things to have in the Chaos codex, but then a new version came out and it was the Obliterators. So you loaded up on Obliterators (or whatever) and the next codex comes out and Obliterators are now nerfed, with no real explanation. However, the army is still strong (it has a new codex, after all) but it is this new Chaos Heldrake – which is a $75 model, by the way – that is The New Badness, and you can buy two of them in a standard point army!

The net result of all this is that it produces codex sales, then army sales, then unit sales for the players in it for the long run. Of course, if you read The Miniatures Page, or about any other forum, including WH40K fanboy forums, you will have already read all of this. GW has their model, and to be honest, they draw new people into the hobby. As their business model eventually puts off most of their gamers, and some of those who quit join the ranks of historical gamers, we should probably be grateful. My point, however, is not the grinding aspect of their business model, but how that model is supported by adopting a fairly thin set of core rules and adding layers of special rules and exceptions through specially purchased expansions. I will give GW props for one thing, however: unit special abilities are now codified as names ("Infiltrator", "Rending", "Fearless", etc.) and the rules for those special abilities are in the main rules. You still need to codices to know who gets these special abilities, but if your opponent tells you in the game that he has a Fearless character with Infiltrator and a Rending weapon, at least you have access to the rules ahead of time. There is still a little problem of special weapons and wargear, but hey, they can't fix everything in a single edition. They still need you to have a reason to buy the codices.

Of course, there is nothing to stop you and your buddies from buying one army and one codex apiece and then playing the heck out of that and having fun, not getting caught up in the spiral of the creeping, perfect imbalance. But honestly, it is hard finding two balanced armies at any point in time, and a new codex will upset that balance, so players would need to agree to freeze their codexes to a point in time. Not likely to happen.

Now we move to Flames of War (FoW). One could say that their army books are codices. They contain force compositions, unit stats, special rules, and exceptions to the normal rules. A big difference between FoW and WH40K, however, is that there are generic army lists with the main FoW rules set (not the mini-rulebook, however) and they generally are competitive. The books are really only required if you wish to start a new period (Early-, Mid-, or Late-War), theater, or campaign. As the older books contained force compositions for both sides, it was an automatic buy if you were interested in that period, theater, or campaign. However, when they went the way of separate Axis and Allied books, some people did not buy both books. It will be interesting to see if they go back to books that contain something for both sides, to induce everyone to buy it.

Generally speaking, FoW is much more forgiving than WH40K, in that there are fewer surprises in the book, it is generally easier to get unit stats without buying every book, and the unit special abilities are in the main rules (e.g. "Awkward Layout", "Semi-Indirect Fire", etc.). Like WH40K the codices primarily give you access to the highly competitive lists. Again, you and your gaming buddies could agree to play generic lists, or find balanced lists and freeze them, but that is not likely to happen for very long. Variety is the spice of life and both WH40K and FoW promise a lot of variety over time.

Saga is an interesting study, because each new faction that comes out is unique in some way, sometimes creating completely new rules (Irish champions, for example). However, the exceptions to the core rules are usually very short and have to be gone over before a game. For example, when a player with Irish Champions runs three single figures around, the opponent is going to know something is up. As you almost always have to run through your forces at the beginning of every game, pointing out who is Hearthguard, Warrior and Levy, and discussing armaments (not everyone has duplicates of their Hearthguard with and without Danish Axes), that is a good time to go over the few special rules a faction may have. There are some, but they are generally very few.

Where the main difference lies is with the battleboards. What I have started doing is making a photocopy of each battleboard (for personal use only!) so that each player can play on their own battleboard and use the copy of their opponent's battleboard as a reference sheet. That way they can see every trick their opponent can pull and can ensure that they are pulling it legally! (We are still learning, so sometimes we try and play an ability in the wrong phase. Purely unintentional!)

So, if a new expansion comes out, not everyone has to buy it. At the start of the first game playing against a new faction the owning player would go over the troops used, as normal, and cover any special rules, if any. They could then hand them a copy of their battleboard (for use during the game only – I am not suggesting they let their opponent keep that copy) for reference during the game. Although your opponent might be a bit surprised by something the new faction possesses, you probably don't know how to properly play them either, so it quickly comes out in the wash.

The difference is that only those who are interested in the new period, theater, or campaign has to buy the expansion. Even if you don't share a copy of the battleboard as a reference during the game, the battleboard's composition itself is not kept secret, so your opponent can always read up on the abilities; everything is out in the open and available to your opponent without having to have everyone buy the expansion in order to remain competitive.

Finally, we get to Munchkin. Each card contains the special rules. When the card is played, the special rule kicks in and everyone sees the rule. Yes, you might play better if you knew all of the cards of a given expansion and thus knew what was possible, but given the highly random nature of the game (random card draws, etc.) there is really no way to plan or take advantage of that knowledge. Essentially this is a game full of special rules and exceptions, but essentially near-complete transparency for the players.

Special rules, in and of itself, is not the problem. It really is about the dissemination of that information to all players. Does it require the player to invest a lot of time and money in order to get "perfect" information about what is possible for your opponent? Does that information change at a rate that seems excessive (in terms of time or money invested to keep up)? Does the lack of information lead to outright game losses or merely momentary disadvantages? Do these special rules act as "tricks" that allow the player to win despite bad or poor gameplay? All of these factors lead to one's enjoyment of the game.

I see games that have core rules and nothing else as "pure", but not necessarily a better gaming experience. For me, these sort of pure games require some form of scenario (which in turn has scenario special rules) in order to ensure the game does not quickly get stale. Whether it is giving one side more points, better force composition, a terrain advantage, or a task to complete, something has to give. DBA is a good example. All core rules with all of the army lists in a single book. The army lists themselves give force composition advantages (or disadvantages), but also give a potential terrain advantage (in the form of an Aggression rating, used to determine who sets up terrain). But let's face it, some army match-ups in DBA will result in one side winning the majority of the time, because it is designed to be historical. DBA is a fun game, but instead of buying multiple books and expansions for the same figures (as with WH40K and FoW) you buy multiple armies to get the variety. (I probably have more than a dozen armies and I think Don said he had more than 60. The Schmidt's, who introduced our club to DBA had more than 160, if I recall correctly.)

Maybe this is where my American Revolutionary and Napoleonic gaming has been falling flat. When I was a kid our Napoleonic gaming was fun because we played a big battle scenario every month. The club had upwards of 20 members and had a collection numbered in the tens of thousands of 25mm figures. There was a points system that ensured variety in the force composition (although the French Cuirassiers seemed to make a lot of appearances) and the terrain always varied (and yet was always the same; to understand that riddle I refer you to my Tactical Exercises and Micro-Games post), plus there were almost always some kind of scenario special rule, like when the reinforcements came on or what turn an objective had to be taken by in order to gain extra victory points. In that kind of setting it is not hard to get variety. Now, however, the only collection is mine, and I provide both sides. I usually provide the terrain also, so all the options are fewer. I think that gaming FoW and Saga, and others like it, have led to gamers expecting equal-point scenarios. This makes it hard to replicate the gaming successes of the past, which were never equal point games. (They weren't always balanced affairs either, but we tried to make them that way.)

It is ironic that we can play an unbalanced scenario in Memoir '44 – play it twice in fact – but cannot do so with Flames of War. I know that the primary reason we can do that with Memoir '44 is because we can play once on each side in a single gaming session, but that was impossible with Flames of War. We could have played it once for each side in two gaming sessions however, but that never seemed … right.

The board gaming industry does not seem to have a problem putting out game with unbalanced scenarios, but so much of the miniatures rules industry does have a problem with playing games where the perception is that the sides are not balanced. Sure, there are players that don't use points systems and there are people that play unbalanced scenarios (I do not mean "missions", a la FoW and WH40K when I say "scenarios"), but they really are few and far between. In fact, I cannot think of a single set of miniatures rules that I play, or do not play but is played locally, that do not use equal points as a means of producing a "fair" game.

Ah well, let's leave points systems to a rant for another day. Sound off! Let me hear you thoughts on how points systems have changed gaming, for better or worse.

Barks' Gameboard - Wow!

Every so often I go through the list of people following this blog and see what blogs they have and follow. There are some really good blogs out there. In fact, most of the blogs I follow come from that list of readers' blogs or blogs they follow.

I looked at Barks profile and found his Wargaming with Barks blog and was immediately struck by the appearance of his gameboard. (By the way, Barks has an interesting series of articles on painting the Battlefront river terrain pieces, making them look even better. You should check them out, especially if you have those terrain pieces.)

Back to the gameboard. It really has a good look to it. So I started searching for an article to see how he made it. I was shocked to learn that it was a Citadel (GW) Realm of Battle Gameboard, which I had never heard of. Barks' article on how he did his gameboard is really interesting. Even though Citadel's gameboard is $300, for what essentially looks like a 6' by 4' injection molded plastic model, it looks very tempting, especially when you see the results Barks obtained.

Which brings me to my point. We tend to spend quite a bit of money and time on our figures, and even to some extent on basing those figures, but it is the rare person that spends that time and money on really good terrain. In the end, is $300 really that expensive for the 'ground covering' of a 6' x 4' table? (You can extend the table size by getting two 2' x 2' squares for an additional $100.) Granted, you still need to get woods, buildings, rivers, and roads, plus some extra hills might be nice.

This also hearkens me back to an old What Would Patton Do (WWPD) podcast with Shawn Morris (The Terrain Guy) where they discussed the idea of gaming on static gameboards. (By the way, the Realm of Battle Gameboard is not exactly static. As shown on the web page, it can be rearranged a number of ways to add some variety.) Although Shawn made a compelling argument about using static gameboards, other than Jon Baber's Arnhem gameboard, it does not sound like the WWPD really took to the idea, in the long run.

I've seen a number of your blogs, and battle reports for those that do them, and I see most people do it like I do. Lay down a game cloth or mat (I have an old US Army blanket, some grass green micro-fleeces from Wal-Mart, and a Citadel Game Mat that I switch between), plop some terrain down, and then game. The conclusion is that terrain variety seems to be more important than, say, a cohesive set of terrain pieces that actually look like they go together. (That is more a comment on my terrain, dear readers, and not on yours! In my AWI games you can unfortunately see tank tread marks in the muddy roads!)

So, is that true? Do you favor terrain configurations and variety over a cohesive, but static or semi-static vision? Has anyone every played a fair number of games over the same terrain, but with different scenarios, goals, and objectives? Can you shed any light on what it is really like?